- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
13 years ago, because they perceived a threat (rightly or wrongly) from reports and actions.
hardly getting stopped speeding like some are suggesting here.
and help to keep the site free for all
Should the police be armed
- Thread starter cowasaki
- Start date
13 years ago, because they perceived a threat (rightly or wrongly) from reports and actions.
hardly getting stopped speeding like some are suggesting here.
- Messages
- 1,525
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
didn't the guy carrying the bag have mental issues so didn't know what was going on? or am i getting mixed up?
on another note, i know some right loonies that are serving officers and the thought of them patrolling with a loaded firearm is as worse as some nutter criminal carrying one!
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
not sure, i remember he was post op cancer.
maybe dave1 can clear up, i wonder if armed police get full psych rundowns?
Hacker
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 7,625
- Name
- Colin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In my eyes that makes him properly (and intensively) trained and more than suitably experienced. Trained professional or informed hobbyist? I know who my money is with.
- Messages
- 4,729
- Name
- Jamie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
arclight said:
Again, you're making entirely unsubstantiated claims that you expect people to take as read when that simply isn't the case. If you want to make statements like that and be taken seriously then take the time to find cold, hard facts in support of such a trend.
I also think someone else has pointed out that isn't an exhaustive list of nations without armed officers.
All I'm saying is an informed debate should use more than just personal opinion to support an argument.
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
whether or not they are given psych checks is irrelevant unless they check for the "right" things.. I know someone who wants to be in the army because "he wants to kill people" (and he wouldn't deny that fact here and now) and as far as I know he's got in to the army.
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've been out a number of years now, but there has always been psychometric testing.
The process and procedure is far more refined now, there are now psychiatric consultants utilised in both the recruiting and training.
Unfortunately no test is infallible, and human error can also allow mistakes.
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Carlo said:
The man shot was called Harry Stanley if you feel like Googling him....
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Russ77 said:
And who would be paying for this "mother of all
- Messages
- 10,051
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I remember Robin Williams made a comment about the US and UK police when confronting a criminal:
US Police Officer: "Stop or I'll shoot!"
New York Police Officer: [BANG] "Stop or I'll shoot!"
UK Police Officer: "Stop...or I'll say stop again...please stop!"
US Police Officer: "Stop or I'll shoot!"
New York Police Officer: [BANG] "Stop or I'll shoot!"
UK Police Officer: "Stop...or I'll say stop again...please stop!"
Errr, I'm not saying you do?!
I'm saying good luck finding the space in prison - as in - if you charged everybody for possession there wouldn't be enough space...
OK, where is this 'mother of all prisons' going to be built? I fear NIMBY.
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
I think the fact our police are not armed it says a lot about our society, in a superbly good way.
being armed will not have been able to help deal with the situation those two lady police officers faced
It also says a lot about our character that in Iraq and Afghanistan, our troops as a whole are more diplomatic, and less gungho than their US colleagues... our approach commands a lot of respect form all concerned, and that saves lives
being armed will not have been able to help deal with the situation those two lady police officers faced
It also says a lot about our character that in Iraq and Afghanistan, our troops as a whole are more diplomatic, and less gungho than their US colleagues... our approach commands a lot of respect form all concerned, and that saves lives
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And find much more fiction on the matter than you'll find in the average library! All of it from people who have chosen to ignore the real fact, preferring to believe the Guardian instead.
I happen to agree that it's unlikely that the 2 officers in yesterdays tragic case would have helped them in that situation. Although the question has to be asked, would chummy have had the bottle to try that if there was a chance he may end being shot himself?
No one can answer that.
It's been said that being killed as a Police officer is an occupational risk. Well, firstly if that is the case than employers have a duty to mitigate that risk, and Chief Constables and ACPOO have never done so.
Secondly, I've just checked my conditions of service (Police Officers don't have contacts of employment), and nope, no mention of being expected to be killed on duty. But then it's an imperfect world. However, that does not make that risk an acceptable fact of life, nor does it excuse the murder of 2 people who we pay to walk towards, when the rest of us can and do run away.
One dead Police Officer is one too many, whichever way you look at it. There is no longer a deterrent in the Judicial System, at one time, until very recently, kill a Police Officer, and thats it, no parole, you stay inside until you leave in a wooden box. Was that a deterrent? Again, no one can know for certain, but I do know I walked into a Betting shop having been called in 1981, to 2 men acting suspiciously. I left after 10 minutes with a firearm in my pocket and 2 prisoners. Why didn't they shoot me? They said they knew what would happen if they did.
Thats one example where according to them the deterrent worked. Clearly yesterday was an example where that deterrent didn't exist, so we can't know if it'd have been valid. Is it right to say that it would still have happened? No idea, but Police need to know there is at least a hint at protection of them, and that there is something other than a very dark blue suit that makes people think.
For those that harp for the days of George Dixon, you should know that it was fiction, and secondly he was murdered, by being shot.
Lastly, I am not in favour of arming all police. I think a far higher proportion should be though. All response officers for example, after all, it is generally them that are first on scene at any call, and it is them who have the highest death toll.
- Messages
- 4,729
- Name
- Jamie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I voted it'd be OK in some situations. There's certainly a need for an armed response to be available at very short notice but I don't think that arming every police officer is a desirable situation for them or us.
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Bernie174 said:
So the Police are always right, never "bend" the truth and always give factual accounts of incidents when called to account?
Every time someone dares mention instances where the police, and most notably the Met, have been found wanting, you jump in and state that everyone else ( from the IPCC to the fourth estate) is wrong/lying/has a hidden agenda.
Face it, either everyone else is fibbing, or you're viewing the world through some nice rose-tinted spectacles
- Messages
- 4,856
- Name
- scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
and most didnt want stab vests either until they were made to wear them now all police forces wear them.
- Messages
- 4,856
- Name
- scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Rather have it and not need it etc etc
- Messages
- 5,856
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Armchair experts of the world unite.
Cops are a long way off perfect, that much is obvious.
More guns = more deaths. Can't believe anyone won't accept that.
Cops shoot anyone, correctly or incorrectly = get dragged through the mill by lefties and 'supportive' bosses alike
We all go to work knowing there is a very tiny chance we won't come home. We all know and accept that fact. Arming Nicola and Fiona would not have saved their lives yesterday. Fact.
RIP ladies
Cops are a long way off perfect, that much is obvious.
More guns = more deaths. Can't believe anyone won't accept that.
Cops shoot anyone, correctly or incorrectly = get dragged through the mill by lefties and 'supportive' bosses alike
We all go to work knowing there is a very tiny chance we won't come home. We all know and accept that fact. Arming Nicola and Fiona would not have saved their lives yesterday. Fact.
RIP ladies
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
Last edited:
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
thats fine by me, but ranting on the internet isnt going to help anyone.
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
okay look, i didnt realise where you were before posting the soapbox comment (hence the edit) and im genuinely appaulled by the killings (and did say so earlier and in the tread further down discussing the 2 WPC) etc. however youre making this personal, and i appriciate this is a difficult time for yourself and your colleages but it might be wise to steer clear of this topic for a while as its only going to stir up feelings..
i am genuinely sorry for your loss.
i am genuinely sorry for your loss.
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Flash
Because in the case of Stanley, they are indeed talking fiction.
Most of that fiction is of course what was peddled by the 4th Estate, and then embellished by fools.
In fact it's very similar to your claims over Hrawood, isn't it. You were told by the Guardian, couldn't see something and made an assumption, all without any evidence.
Now, I'm sure you'll claim to be an intelligent man, able to think for himself, and that may be true, but if you can be duped into thinking one way, when actually the evidence had been easily found on the internet within a few minutes. Then it's reasonably clear how other, less intelligent, ie those that read or worse, believe the Guardian, can be equally had over.
After all, I could find it, and I am just a thick ex copper.
pepi1967
If the cause of death has been established, it's not been announced yet, and to be honest I doubt it will be until the Inquest.
Because in the case of Stanley, they are indeed talking fiction.
Most of that fiction is of course what was peddled by the 4th Estate, and then embellished by fools.
In fact it's very similar to your claims over Hrawood, isn't it. You were told by the Guardian, couldn't see something and made an assumption, all without any evidence.
Now, I'm sure you'll claim to be an intelligent man, able to think for himself, and that may be true, but if you can be duped into thinking one way, when actually the evidence had been easily found on the internet within a few minutes. Then it's reasonably clear how other, less intelligent, ie those that read or worse, believe the Guardian, can be equally had over.
After all, I could find it, and I am just a thick ex copper.
pepi1967
If the cause of death has been established, it's not been announced yet, and to be honest I doubt it will be until the Inquest.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Bernie174 said:
Everyone, save the police, were "talking fiction"?
Do you realise how ridiculous that statement is?
Lynton
awkward customer
- Messages
- 10,606
- Name
- Lynton (yes really!)
- Edit My Images
- No
Arming the police or not can be argued for/against until the cows come home.
My personal opinion is that there is probably the right balance at the moment, in that regular police / (Bobbies on the beat - for the want of a better term) generally do not wish to be armed and that is probably the best decision for all......
However, I understand the need to have specialised units / armed response teams for as and when situations call for it... Not sure if it the same for police as for members of armed forces etc, but I really do not get the "do not fire until fired upon" (in some situations)
I would imagine heat of the moment, it's a very tough call to make... is it a real gun / a fake gun etc etc..
My personal opinion is that there is probably the right balance at the moment, in that regular police / (Bobbies on the beat - for the want of a better term) generally do not wish to be armed and that is probably the best decision for all......
However, I understand the need to have specialised units / armed response teams for as and when situations call for it... Not sure if it the same for police as for members of armed forces etc, but I really do not get the "do not fire until fired upon" (in some situations)
I would imagine heat of the moment, it's a very tough call to make... is it a real gun / a fake gun etc etc..
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
I seriously doubt that is the case..
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think the basic ROE is something along the lines of lethal force being authorised if they believe either themselves or another person is in imediate danger - with the collateral clause of "god help you if you are wrong"
which is the basic reason a lot of cops don't want to be armed - its not a moral objection to shooting scumbags in the head , its a very real fear of getting hung up by the nuts by the PSD/IPCC if you make a bad judgement call in the heat of the moment.
which is the basic reason a lot of cops don't want to be armed - its not a moral objection to shooting scumbags in the head , its a very real fear of getting hung up by the nuts by the PSD/IPCC if you make a bad judgement call in the heat of the moment.
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You don't have to wait to be fired upon - that's balmy - you end up dead that way! If you suspect the person is armed you warn him you're armed and he's to stand still (That's assuming you have time to shout that warning). The moment he points what looks like a firearm at you whether it's real, imitation, or a chair leg there's only one response - you shoot.
It's not really a tough call and there's no time to sit down and think about it - if you believe he's armed and you or someone else is in imminent danger, you shoot - it's that simple. You're talking nano seconds away from possibly being dead if you delay.
There's no error of judgement involved, only on the part of the guy putting himself in that situation.
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm not sure it's the prospect of a 'bad call', more the right call, and then being tried by media, like the Stanley and Duggan cases.
In both of those cases, those most vocal have seized on part of the story or rumour and assumed the rest. In both cases, they were of course wrong.
How long did the Stanley case go on for? 6 years! How long have the IPCC dragged out Duggan so far? over a year.
In neither case is that justified. That was my objection to carrying a firearm.
Of course Police use of firearms needs to be investigated, but properly and in a truly independent way.
arclight
Oooh that burglar's a cutie
- Messages
- 11,577
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How interesting - I was just about to post:-
Do I think the police should be armed - Yes.
Would I be prepared to an armed officer - No ..............
............. because every time an officer uses a gun a pantomime unfolds that suggests there is a presumption of wrongdoing on the officers part.
BTW - I am not in the police.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I didnt phrase that very well - but we're talking about the same thing , a shoot/not shoot 'decision' (and I agree with CT that we are talking nano seconds so its not a concious 'oh I say' decision at all ) which is made on the best of grounds and motivations in the heat of the moment , but which later is judged not to have been "justfied" (with the masive benefit of hindsight, by people who've been no nearer a live firearm than their TV screen)
As I said earlier I support arming more of the police (maybe not every officer - but having enough armed responders available that unarmed cops don't get sent to investigate reports of gunfire etc) but if we are going to arm them , we've got to support them when the arms are used within the RoE
Obviously no one is going to support a rogue officer who goes out and shoots an innocent civillian for no reason, but i'm not aware of that ever having happened in the UK - but where an armed officer makes a decision to fire within the rules of engagement, on the best available information, then he shouldnt be treated like a criminal - and those that point toy guns, replicas, deacts etc at armed police should expect what they get and be treated accordingly
Last edited: